If we are told that Building 7 could collapse without a plane having hit it, why then must we believe that towers 1 & 2 came down as a result of planes hitting them? Can you say “contradiction?” Could the towers have collapsed without planes hitting them or for some other reason as did Building 7?

Theory: Building 7 was supposed to be hit by Flight 93 but Flight 93 was shot down by a pilot who was doing his job and was not in on the plot. The planes hitting the towers were the cover story for the cause of collapses.

Do you remember Donald Rumsfeld’s little slip of the tongue when he spoke about the events of 9/11 and about the plane that was “shot down” over Pennsylvania? What if that was not misspeak? What if that was just a Freudian slip where the truth mistakenly came out?

Let’s assume that the part of the goal of the attacks was to destroy all 3 main WTC buildings; WTC 1, 2 & 7. Let’s assume the plan was to crash a plane into each of the 3 buildings and then at a later time set off charges that had been placed throughout the buildings by people who appear to be doing routine or special building construction or reconstruction projects.

Here is where things might have gone wrong. Towers 1 & 2 were hit directly by aircraft. Even if the visual & scientific evidence indicate that the collapses were NOT the result of the collisions or of the pursuant fires caused by the collisions, it is quite understandable how a trusting public can accept the official explanation for the collapses of the 2 main towers based on the planes crashing into them.

Building 7 is different. Building 7 went down in what can only be described as a perfect controlled manner where all supporting structures gave way at precisely the same time resulting in a perfect vertical drop. The building did not tilt, it did not start to lean, it did not show signs of stress, it simply dropped to the ground with the inside dropping before the shell (standard procedure in controlled demolitions so that the walls fall inward and create a small footprint). Had a plane hit this building the unanswerable questions regarding why it fell would at least have an explanation that is somewhat plausible. With no plane hitting the building the government was unable to formulate any kind of explanation for the collapse of Building 7. As a result of the government’s inability to come up with even a partially realistic explanation for the collapse of Building 7 it has chosen to deal with this situation by completely erasing it from official history. Building 7 is not even addressed in the Kean Commission report. Therefore it is my suggestion that perhaps part of the plan was to have flight 93 hit this building lending some credence to the notion that the buildings collapsed due to the collisions.

What is quite clear and is NOT theory is the fact that there has been no explanation for the collapse of Building 7 and that its collapse has been erased from reality by our media and by our government. Even the most ignorant among us who blindly accept the official conspiracy theory, with all its omissions, contradictions and right our falsehoods, have to have some doubts when it comes to the collapse of Building 7.

Building 7 collapsing without being hit by any object validates completely the plausibility of the claims made by the independent research community that the main towers did not collapse as a result of the planes hitting them or of the pursuant fires. Of course the destruction of building 7 only proves that it is possible that the towers could have collapsed by means other than the planes and fires since neither a plane nor a significant fire did damage to Building 7 but it collapsed anyway. While the collapse of building 7 simply sets the precedence for the claims that the main towers were taken down by controlled demolition, the volumes of video evidence showing explosions at the base of the WTC prior to the collapse and showing that the towers did not collapse rather they exploded from the top down followed by charges going off in advance of the fall line, surely solidify that claim.

While we do not know for sure what happened that day we do know several things:
1. Members of the Bush administration were in a position to prevent, permit or conduct the events of 9/11/2001 and these same people openly professed how a new Pearl Harbor (which took place on 9/11) would help advance their agenda. As a result, these people turned out to be the greatest beneficiaries of the events of that day.
2. We do know that to date no official explanation has been given for the collapse of Building 7.
3. We do know that our corporate media have ignored every aspect of the collapse of Building 7.
4. We do know that the Bush administration expedited the destruction of all evidence related to the collapses of the towers and of Building 7, which we all know is not only suspisious but it is a crime.

What we do not know is why Building 7 collapsed.

Had Flight 93 slammed into Building 7, then the collapse would have had an official explanation. In essence the official conspiracy theory would be fairly complete. Without explaining this event the official conspiracy theory is invalid. The government’s solution: ignore the event. Our media have ignored it and most of the public have ignored it. However ignoring something does not always make it go away and it it surely does not change reality. The fact that Building 7 collapsed without being damaged by any significant outside forces puts into doubt the entire official explanation for the collapses of towers 1 & 2. That my friends, is a fact. If we are told that Building 7 could collapse without a plane having hit it, why then must we believe that towers 1 & 2 came down as a result of planes hitting them? Can you say “contradiction?” Could the towers have collapsed without planes hitting them or for some other reason as did Building 7?

I suggest that a plane was supposed to hit Building 7 as the cover reason for its collapse. The building was set to come down by controlled demolition which is obvious by the videos of its destruction. The plane was part of the cover story. Somebody slipped up and that last plane was not allowed to reach its target. The government and the media did not have a fall back story to tell the public if the operation did not go exacly as planned so they did the only thing they could have done, they pretend it did not happen. They ignored Building 7 and thanks do the controlled story telling by our media most of the public did not even notice. They just pretended Building 7 never existed and the public just swallowed the story without even chewing.

Do I know for sure if this theory is true? No; that is why I call it a theory, or better yet it is a reasonable suggestion based on what we know. This is also why I published this on my blog and not on the main site. This is a theory but it a reasonable and plausable theory at that.

Well folks, Building 7 came down and to this day your government did not tell you why and your news media did ask why. What else haven’t they told you?

The empire state building's wedding cake design, I believe, IS more sturdy....

Did you know the WTC towers OUTER walls were also the load bearing walls? It was a tubelike design....In my opinion that is where the media and the government have failed to admit that the structure itself was a leading cause to their demise....

Absolutely...I was just like Lew, thinking the "official" government explanation was the true one. Then I received a copy of the DVD mga is talking about, out of the blue. Still have no idea who sent it or why...but I watched that DVD and it changed my mind about the 9/11 attacks forever.

I was appalled at the EVIDENCE, cold, clear, and precise. Not THEORY, but EVIDENCE, and not just about the buildings themselves.

Absolutely...I was just like Lew, thinking the "official" government explanation was the true one. Then I received a copy of the DVD mga is talking about, out of the blue. Still have no idea who sent it or why...but I watched that DVD and it changed my mind about the 9/11 attacks forever.

First of all, dont lump me in some category, second yes they are theories built on innuendos and the panic and confusion of that day....

lets take A. the one about Bush saying he saw the first plane hit...huh? how could he? you've all probably heard that one something to the effect When I saw a plane hit I thought to myself that was one bad pilot.

what if he said this... When I saw that a plane had hit ......Dont start rumours around what that man says he can barely speak

2. or how about this one? The Payne Stewart Analogy (well I talked about that in the other thread about military Jets intercept.....)
It all started with an AP reporters error of the timeline

3.the bombs in the towers....ok, we've heard fireman state on that day we "Think" there are bombs in there.....and it was LIKE a bomb went off.....
again the confusion and panic of the day...leads to many misled ideas..

folks Im not trying to be crude here and I take your concerns seriiously because they're everbody's concerns....But to me a lot of this 9/11 conspiracy is just the result of a deep rooted hatred towards Bush and his cronies.....Much like White Water, Vince Foster etc...was for Clinton

The examples you listed are small and shaky compared to the mounds of EVIDENCE already compiled in reference to the 9/11 attacks. The films you listed have some good content and make some good points, but can also be confusing. CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE is one of the most complete informational films about 9/11. If you watch any films on the events of this day, watch this one.You are being lumped in a category because of your ignorance of the facts. But hey, if you still think Oswalt killed Kennedy, how can you possibly believe a group of men would murder their own people to advance a political agenda and make billions of dollars. Its not like they've ever lied before, right? I am not a democrat out to bash Bush. I rarely like to put labels on myself or restrict my thinking because of an afflliation with a group. What I am however is logical. Bush is a complete moron. He is a monkey/puppet. The people currently in power are systematically destroying the earth. The war in Iraq is doing more harm than good, the current administration is guilty of high treason, The official explanation given to us by these people is completly absurd. I dont belong to any political party, but I can say these things with confidence. You either have to be lying to yourself, deeply misinformed, or just plain stupid to think otherwise. We bash Bush, because he deserves it. In my opinion he is a traitor guilty of multiple crimes (including murder) and should be put to death. Again, I don't hate all republicans. I form my opinions of people on a person by person basis. Get your shit together and your mind out of la-la land. You will learn the truth eventually, but even then will you believe it? I know many people will not. Dont perpetuate the myth Lew. Don't be a fool.

Theories aside, does anyone think it is possible that a Boeing 757 or 767 crashing into a skyscraper can cause it to collapse? Also, are there any scientists or engineers that have come forward and stated that it is unlikely an aircraft the size of a 757 or 767 can take a building down? Does anyone have any idea of the forces that are present when a 757 or 767 collides with a building? Does anyone believe that 10,000 gallons (estimate, not sure of exact value) of burning jet fuel can destroy/melt concrete and steel? I will admit, I have not done a whole lot of research on this topic, but have followed a few of the links posted. I have only discovered pictures with captions pointing out perceived discrepancies. I'm not trying to bash anyone, just saying I need a little more proof.

I thought of another question. Since it appears that everyone that has posted to this thread, with the exception of Lew and myself, believe Bush/Cheney was behind 9/11, is it possible that Clinton/Gore were behind the first WTC bombing and the OKC federal building bombing? Maybe McVeigh was just the fall guy. Why or why not?